About AJ DiCintio
A.J. DiCintio is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. He first exercised his polemical skills arguing with friends on
the street corners of the working class neighborhood where he grew up.
Retired from teaching, he now applies those skills, somewhat honed and
polished by experience, to social/political affairs.
Celebrating the Fourth with Washington
Liberals Expose Themselves (And It's a Good Thing)
Epidemic of Foot-in-Mouth
Borders, Polls & Statistics Schmatistics
Blowing Up a Pornographic Boycott
Looking Like Europe
Bombs & The English Language
Slouching Toward Columbia & Belgium
Washing Out Dirty Mouths
Dangerous, Unbeautiful Nanny
Damned Lies & Statistics
Is Method in Obama's Healthcare Madness
Perverse Financial Elites
Flying Under the Radar
Obama: No JFK
Massachusetts: Vote! For God's Sake, Vote!
Cowardice, Expediency, Language & Liberals
Tax & Principles
Christmas Times Four
Snake in the Grass
Narrative & Afghanistan
Prostitution & The Healthcare Bill
That Killed at Fort Hood
Who Are the Know-Nothings?
All the Tomatoes!
It's Not a
War Against FOX News
Hope) We’re Not Gonna Take It Anymore
Hyperpartisanship, Propaganda & Hypocrisy
& Sherman's Legacy
Epistemology, Materialists & Morality
the Stench of the Stable
Shameful Education Affair
Reform: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
(Audaciously Arrogant) Mob
The Boiled Frog
the Last Cow Has Come Home
and The Big Hate
Jefferson: Don’t Question a Supreme Court Nominee Without Him
Paul Krugman, Politician
July 13, 2010
Paul Krugman has had all the advantages.
For example, he's a Yale man — Thurston Howell III's opinion about Yalies
notwithstanding because among its other excellences, Yale offers its students
the opportunity to learn that the world’s greatest creative spirits have been
properly brutal in their estimate of politicians.
For instance, attentive Elis should know that the playwrights of ancient Greece
heaped unspeakable tragedies on the heads and hearts of the most important
politicians — though Sophocles et al. did allow that the hubris-infected big
shots might return to favor among the gods if they accepted their punishment
with humility and understanding.
Yale grads ought to know, too, that Dante and Shakespeare were not so kind, the
former depicting politicians as prime candidates to suffer the hellish, eternal
pain of the inferno and the latter regarding them as so profoundly incapable of
redemption (or today’s "rehabilitation”) that he ended his plays by littering
the stage with their bodies.
Yes, Yale men and women should know what great writers have always said about
politicians, including the vitriol penned by satirists such as Juvenal, Swift,
Perhaps, however, they don’t because for decades on end our colleges and
universities have been exempting liberal/leftist politicians from truths written
and spoken since antiquity.
(Anita Dunn, Obama’s former interim communications director and campaign "senior
advisor,” is no professor. But she did her best to promulgate The Liberal View
of Politicians when in June of ’09 she told graduates of St. Andrew’s prep
school outside Washington that she considers the madman monster, mass murderer,
and obese human rights hater Mao Zedong one of her "favorite political
But whatever Paul Krugman learned or didn’t learn as a student, the fact remains
that he could have chosen the career of honest, sensible economist (to the
extent such a feat is possible for practitioners of the "dismal science”).
However, he didn’t, opting, instead, to become a politician economist, with all
the ugliness the choice entails.
(How’s that for proving that advantage alone doesn’t even come close to making
Here’s the evidence:
Anyone who’s been reading Krugman lately knows he’s been relentlessly calling
for enormous government borrowing and spending as the only true avenue to
In fact, the Princeton professor wanted the $800 billion slab of rancid,
earmarked pork that is the "stimulus bill” to weigh in at over a trillion
dollars, perhaps $1.2 trillion.
And today he certainly favors more "stimulus,” even in the form of welfare to
states such as California, Illinois, and New York, all of which face astonishing
deficits — through no fault of their own, according to liberal dogma.
In fact, Krugman gets so excited about the benefits of a nation’s borrowing its
way out of hard times he recently gushed that "the long-term cost of servicing
an extra trillion dollars of borrowing is [only] $17.5 billion,” as if the
amount is a one-time cost (it’s annual and likely to last forever) and as if
there’s no further price to be paid for the "inflation-protected” government
bonds he expects China to buy.
Moreover, he has condemned Western European nations as Ultimate Scrooges for not
increasing their borrowing and spending even though their citizens are straining
to keep their noses above an existing ocean of national debt that reaches just
to (and at times into) their nostrils.
However, while Krugman has called for huge, increased spending literally
hundreds of times, he has only several times mentioned the need for fiscal
responsibility in the future.
Worse, he speaks in exquisite detail about how much the U.S. ought to borrow and
how it should spend the money (some of which initiates permanent government
programs); yet he never gets specific about his ideas for what happens when the
borrowing must end.
Is it possible a Nobel Prize winning economist finds himself unable to "do the
math” regarding how much in tax increases or reductions in government programs
will be necessary to put the nation’s fiscal house in order?
Is it possible he is completely flummoxed about the kind of taxes needed and how
they will fall on the population?
It is possible he has not a single specific thought about the degree to which
the new level of taxation will retard economic growth? Or how it may create a
"new normal” in baseline unemployment? Or how it might keep young people living
at home with their parents until they are 30 or 35?
Is it possible he cannot calculate the point at which a nation’s debt leads to
disaster, a point at which even he declares "not a cent more”?
Is it possible he can’t determine how many dollars China must accumulate before
it can purchase the 30 companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average,
even as that nation holds sway over American workers and American culture as a
result of the U.S. debt it holds?
Of course the answer to those questions is "no.”
Yet not a specific word from him about the size and consequences of the bill
that the economic piper always lays on the table after the profligate have
gorged themselves on debt.
That’s why Paul Krugman is a politician.
And not any politician but one who is not an iota different from his "enormously
intellectual” kindred spirit who ran on promises of "hope” and "change” only to
approve trillions for "stimulus” spending, healthcare "reform,” bailouts for
Fannie, Freddie, and auto workers, and the hiring of at least 100,000 new
federal bureaucrats to administer hundreds of new federal bureaucracies, on top
of a current $1.5 trillion annual federal deficit — all without uttering a
single specific word about the fiscal and social burden that his manic borrowing
and spending will inevitably lay on the backs of the American people.
That’s why Paul Krugman and his deceitful, insidious alter ego fully deserve the
bitter condemnations that, for millennia, humanity’s great truth-tellers have
levied upon practitioners of possibly earth’s oldest but surely its filthiest